Considering the consumer appeal, the professionally developed and supported UI (and hardware), and the pure core functionality for their purpose, I don't believe anybody has caught up with these products, therefore, nobody sells the same thing for less. Some people believe they have suitable substitutes, but they really don't compare, feature-wise.

Remember, since becoming Apple, Inc., they're not just about pcs anymore as the primary business.

Their iPod prices are the same as anyone else's. The same is true for the iPhone. At first, it was high, now, it is average.

The OS is software, and with Apple, as you should know, software serves to sell the hardware. They price the software low for that reason. It helps to lock people into the Mac universe. Upgrade your OS, get new programs from Apple, and others, that have better features because if it, and then buy a new Mc for better performance.

It would be good if we could have a real idea about the proposed specs. I would really like a DVD drive if it had a dedicated card as well i would put my notebook up for sale now and possibly buy an Asus EEE to tide me over.

I am #1 on the I want an ultra-portable band wagon but a 13" screen does not meet my definition. I want a 10" or 11" screen 16:9 ratio.

13" Dang, might as well be 17" on the go.

With 13" no reason to leave out the optical drive as the point of the ultra-portable is to be portable and a 13" screen works against that.

I'll still buy it, but I won't be totally happy about it.

Give me a 13inch widescreen that is a bit over half an inch thick and 3lbs or under and I'd call that an ultraportable or subnotebook or whatever and happily buy.

BTW, I am buying irrespective of price. I don't mind if it is $2,500 as work pays. Your experiences may differ, but I have rarely found road warriors that get much work done on machine that has less than a full-size keyboard and 12inch screen.

Who are these people wanting 10 or 11 inch? Have you guys ever worked on such machines? The cramp compromised keyboards, the lack of vertical space on the screen? Everything you do with such a machine can ALMOST be done with an iphone...

I guess you could run excel on a 10inch screen, but then who could read it?

Give me a 13inch widescreen that is a bit over half an inch thick and 3lbs or under and I'd call that an ultraportable or subnotebook or whatever and happily buy.

BTW, I am buying irrespective of price. I don't mind if it is $2,500 as work pays. Your experiences may differ, but I have rarely found road warriors that get much work done on machine that has less than a full-size keyboard and 12inch screen.

Who are these people wanting 10 or 11 inch? Have you guys ever worked on such machines? The cramp compromised keyboards, the lack of vertical space on the screen? Everything you do with such a machine can ALMOST be done with an iphone...

I guess you could run excel on a 10inch screen, but then who could read it?

It's a fun machine, not so much a work machine. Who says computers have to be made, and bought, for work?

Right now, the new Samsung 64GB SSD costs the OEM (it's not available to end users) $1,000. That would translate to at least $1,500 for you in the computer. Compare that to a bigger capacity HDD for about $125.

I'm sure you would just run out to buy one of these things.

I have a feeling the SSDD will be an option and not a standard feature for the MacBook Thin or whatever it's going to be called.

Here's hoping that they won't go iMacish and make every display glossy. At least give us an option to purchase matte screens.

It's a fun machine, not so much a work machine. Who says computers have to be made, and bought, for work?

This is a very fair point. For me, I live on my laptop and so really would love a 13inch as I need a usable screen. One other issue is how big is the market for either. If you had a Solid State Hard Drive, we are already close to $2,000 and so you'd need to know there are buyers for it. I'd assume a really light 13incher would steal a lot of people that wanted a usable laptop that was just much much lighter and thiner and benefit from fast boot up time.

But judging by the posts, I may be completely mistaken on this. Part of the motivation is the Japanese market which is really big on ultraportable and probably is very used to 10,11inches. I have spent a lot of time there and might see a market for either though.

Is it generally considered that this product will be fitting into the macbook pro line? or as a completely new line all together? What with the 13" screen surely that leans towards a Macbook Pro Light or similar. Anyway, i was wondering if anyone else remembers the black and aluminium cases these laptops were rumoured to have been seen in, surely if this 'ultra-portable' is to be introduced into the macbook pro line then there will be some sort of unison in design for the larger laptops, which obviously means a redesign, even if it is just a black option. Sorry if im being a bit hopeful, i just want apple to do something to the macbook pro already, its been this way for years, id love to even see an option for a custom change (keyboard/colour?) (yes i know many people like it the way it is) i'd like an Aston Martin DB5 but it doesn't mean id buy one if they brought the same design out today.

Eh...the SanDisk 1.8" 32GB SSD is $599 retail. A 32GB SSD for an "ultraportable" should be standard with a larger HDD the optional BTO.

I am not sure on this. I don't see HDD vs SSD as being a choice.

Wouldn't the case be designed around the SSD and its thinness relative to all conventional HDD? Isn't this a rationale for the complete redesign of the internal architecture?

Why would you design internal space to fit the larger HDD and wouldn't this necessitate a larger battery (note battery size impacts maximum energy output and not just longevity - you need a minimum displacement to product a certain amount of Joules/Watts for start up and other peak energy times).

But judging by the posts, I may be completely mistaken on this. Part of the motivation is the Japanese market which is really big on ultraportable and probably is very used to 10,11inches. I have spent a lot of time there and might see a market for either though.

Anyone know a reasonable way to clean the mighty mouse's scroll button? Apple's guidance did nothing (correct that: when I vigorously rubbed it over a damp towel until I cramped up, it went from only scrolling down to only scrolling up). I'm not in the camp that hates the mighty mouse (and I'm too tired today to speculate or care why that makes me flawed), but I'm disappointed that it is now dirty and can't be pulled apart for cleaning. At least not by someone with my average talents.

A Genius mentioned he found a cleaner at Frye's he sprayed on and in the mouse, then proceeded to rub it per the care instructions. Haven't been there yet to search.

Anyone know a reasonable way to clean the mighty mouse's scroll button? Apple's guidance did nothing (correct that: when I vigorously rubbed it over a damp towel until I cramped up, it went from only scrolling down to only scrolling up). I'm not in the camp that hates the mighty mouse (and I'm too tired today to speculate or care why that makes me flawed), but I'm disappointed that it is now dirty and can't be pulled apart for cleaning. At least not by someone with my average talents.

A Genius mentioned he found a cleaner at Frye's he sprayed on and in the mouse, then proceeded to rub it per the care instructions. Haven't been there yet to search.

Anyone want to make my day?

I fixed my daughter's by using iKlear.

I first (though you're not supposed to do this, it's ok for the mouse ball) sprayed some into the ball chamber. Then I moved the ball up/down, around in circles, while pressing down. After doing this several times, after five minutes, or so, small globs of softened dirt began to move up around the ball as I moved it. I kept removing those clumps. After a while, the ball stopped getting dirty.

Then I sprayed a small area of towel and began vigorously rubbing the ball so that it would turn quickly.

After a total of about ten minutes, the scroll began to behave normally.

Don't do this with anything caustic, or that will leave a residue. iKlean is recommended for plastics, and rubber, such as found on computers, and is sold in Apple's stores, so it is safe.

No, no one said that the US was the world. The US is simply the market. Or at least the main market, that is.

I would also gladly buy a <1lb $4K laptop like the one my Japanese roommate has if it ran OS X. But the market in general would not. Jobs is an amazing salesman, but even he could not sell high-powered shopping carts at a mall. Likewise, he won't be able (in the US, his main market) to get more than a few tech junkies to shell out 4 Gs for a laptop just because it weighs as much as an oversized checkbook.

I've lived in both Europe and Asia. My point is that I think a 13inch laptop if it under 3lbs and 2cm thick is pretty darn amazing and portable. It conforms to a common definition of ultra portable, especially in an age where most laptops seem pretty darn heavy.

Some examples people might use - Sony Vaio UX92 are not necessarily seen as laptops.

The standards for me are the Toshiba RX1 and the Panasonic lines. Both are on that page from Dynamism (interesting a 13inch Panasonic is classified as such, demonstrating my point).

I would look at the RX1 on www.dynamism.com as you suggest. The new mac will look like the RX1 with an extra 7/8 inch in length and 1/8 inch in height and whatever else Apple can do. The RX1 looks pretty darn ultraportable to me at 12inches.

I've lived in both Europe and Asia. My point is that I think a 13inch laptop if it under 3lbs and 2cm thick is pretty darn amazing and portable. It conforms to a common definition of ultra portable, especially in an age where most laptops seem pretty darn heavy.

I agree. If Apple sticks with a 13" screen, they will want to redefine what portable is: not so much about small screens, but about lightness and thinness. Teamed up with an external hard drive and DVD burner, it would be pretty cool.

I agree. If Apple sticks with a 13" screen, they will want to redefine what portable is: not so much about small screens, but about lightness and thinness. Teamed up with an external hard drive and DVD burner, it would be pretty cool.

You know actually they could combine them into some cool Apple form factor as an external device. I even wonder if you could have an external wifi bluetooth connected drive of some sort. Fussy technology, but presumably Apple could do it...

Yeah, but is this because the SSDs are designed to be dropped in as a replacement for a HDD and so are designed to be the same size or because they actually need the space? Would an SSD enclosure done from scratch for Apple be thinner...

It's also possible to implement a SSDD directly on the motherboard. With 64GB as the highest available capacity and prices around $1000, it's not yet economically feasible. In 2009, with 128GB SSDDs costing less than $500, it will be. Then it should be possible to produce a 1/2" thick laptop.

Yeah, but is this because the SSDs are designed to be dropped in as a replacement for a HDD and so are designed to be the same size or because they actually need the space? Would an SSD enclosure done from scratch for Apple be thinner...

SSD's are smaller than a 2.5" drive by a good deal when cubic volume is considered. But, they aren't much smaller than a 1.8, esp if you are talking about a 64GB SSD.

This will change, of course, as they get bigger in capacity, but they are sold in these configurations. The 2,5 will end up in desktop models, and the 1.8 will remain in portables.

It's also possible to implement a SSDD directly on the motherboard. With 64GB as the highest available capacity and prices around $1000, it's not yet economically feasible. In 2009, with 128GB SSDDs costing less than $500, it will be. Then it should be possible to produce a 1/2" thick laptop.

Don't be so sure about that pricing. The $1,000 is to OEM's, not the enduser. Maybe by the end of 2009 we will see 128GB versions for $600 OEM price. hopefully, it will drop more than that, but I wouldn't say it's definite.

Don't be so sure about that pricing. The $1,000 is to OEM's, not the enduser. Maybe by the end of 2009 we will see 128GB versions for $600 OEM price. hopefully, it will drop more than that, but I wouldn't say it's definite.

$1000 is the current (or recent) price to OEM in sample volumes, not production volumes. Prices will drop fast as volumes ramp up.

I will never understand this "either/or" mentality. Sure, put some flash RAM on the motherboard to speed up boot time and increase battery life. But go ahead and put a 1.8" HD in there, too. They're used in iPod Classics and how thick are those? With capacity up to 160GB right now, that'd be enough for me and a darn sight better than an anemic 64GB. I'm sure Toshiba would be willing to give them good pricing since AI has already predicted that iPods will soon drop the HDs, so they need a new market for the devices.

I will never understand this "either/or" mentality. Sure, put some flash RAM on the motherboard to speed up boot time and increase battery life. But go ahead and put a 1.8" HD in there, too. They're used in iPod Classics and how thick are those? With capacity up to 160GB right now, that'd be enough for me and a darn sight better than an anemic 64GB. I'm sure Toshiba would be willing to give them good pricing since AI has already predicted that iPods will soon drop the HDs, so they need a new market for the devices.

I agree. In 2008, prices would too expensive to go all the way to a SSDD directly implemented on the motherboard. It has to have a HDD form-factor. That means that there will be HDD options (probably standard due to price) and a 64GB SSDD might be a BTO option. I'm hoping that Apple have chosen 1.8" rather than 2.5" for this new MacBook Nano (I'll call it that until Apple release a name). That would help keep down power consumption. Anyone needing more than 160GB can buy a MacBook Pro.

According to Wikipedia, SSD memory has a median cost of about $8/GB at the consumer level (more for really low-level [<2GB] or high-level [>32Gb] applications) compared to $0.25 for HDD. With all the extra area without an optical drive, Apple doesn't have to buy one expensive 64GB compact SSD ... they can use multiple lower-capacity SSDs at the $8/GB price point and build them directly into the motherboard. They would probably say it was more reliable because the different drives all operated independently.

That would place consumer cost for 64GB of memory spread over the whole notebook a little over $500 - much more manageable. And 64 GB is more than you think; I have a first-gen MacBook with a tiny 60GB HDD (which really means 54.2GB) and it still has 20GB of space left even though I have all my music and pictures and a bunch of freeware programs (including Maya) and a bunch of home movies. I can't rip a bunch of DVDs to it, but with my external 250GB drive I'm perfectly fine.

Multiple SSDs might even mean that data speeds would be faster since data would be on smaller areas. The reason that the 64GB SSD is so expensive is that they pack it all into one small drive.

If they went this route, they could easily come out with a 12 or 15 mm Notebook - or, dare I say it - TouchBook?

And remember, Apple could very easily come out with an minimalist aluminum ultrathin HDD/SuperDrive external combo with its own battery. It would probably be a .75" thick by 13" diagonal form factor and have its own SDRAM cache to make retrieval times faster. They could probably price it at under $300 without much trouble - perhaps 250GB or so and standard Superdrive.

I'm with Kolchak. I would find a way to do both. With no optical drive in it, wouldn't the space be there?

Asus seems to have set a high standard for ultra portables. Read about it here at Ars. And Ars isn't the only one who's enthusiastic about this machine.

If Apple enter this market they're going to need to differentiate themselves from what's currently available. A 160gb HDD with flash for quick boot times would be a nice way.

The Eee PC is a low cost entrant at $399. Expectations are fairly low at that price point. Not saying it isn't nice and I MIGHT get one depending on how it feels but its not an Apple kind of product. Except maybe as a phone.

Eh...I guess you can have a 8 or 16GB worth of flash aboard but you're trading ruggedness for drive space. If they are dumping the optical drive they are really minimizing the size/weight as much as possible.

To me its not worth having a spinning disk in an ultraportable you're optimizing for size/weight while keeping a 13" screen size.

I don't think anything 'touch' at that magnitude will come out until the end of '08 at the earliest. People just aren't ready. I am, but I'm the minority.

I also would naturally doubt that they will come out with a touch anything by the MacWorld Expo, but then again no one expected a touchscreen-only iPhone at that time in '07. And those patents are directly related to the concept of virtual keyboards - heck, the articulating framework patent had an image of a virtual keyboard, and the other part said stuff about "being able to feel buttons on the screen". How much more explicit can the patent lawyers get?

I really can't say for sure, but I won't be surprised if we see the TouchBook come January.

According to Wikipedia, SSD memory has a median cost of about $8/GB at the consumer level (more for really low-level [<2GB] or high-level [>32Gb] applications) compared to $0.25 for HDD. With all the extra area without an optical drive, Apple doesn't have to buy one expensive 64GB compact SSD ... they can use multiple lower-capacity SSDs at the $8/GB price point and build them directly into the motherboard. They would probably say it was more reliable because the different drives all operated independently.

That would place consumer cost for 64GB of memory spread over the whole notebook a little over $500 - much more manageable. And 64 GB is more than you think; I have a first-gen MacBook with a tiny 60GB HDD (which really means 54.2GB) and it still has 20GB of space left even though I have all my music and pictures and a bunch of freeware programs (including Maya) and a bunch of home movies. I can't rip a bunch of DVDs to it, but with my external 250GB drive I'm perfectly fine.

Multiple SSDs might even mean that data speeds would be faster since data would be on smaller areas. The reason that the 64GB SSD is so expensive is that they pack it all into one small drive.

If they went this route, they could easily come out with a 12 or 15 mm Notebook - or, dare I say it - TouchBook?

Forget Wikipedia. Their numbers, as usual, are off. Look at the article I posted earlier to see how they are REALLY priced. Over $1,000 for the new Samsung 64GB model.

Forget Wikipedia. Their numbers, as usual, are off. Look at the article I posted earlier to see how they are REALLY priced. Over $1,000 for the new Samsung 64GB model.

According to an April 25, 2007 Engadget article citing a Samsung press release, SSD is currently at a median price of only $7.50/GB. The 64GB SSD is $1K because it is all one module packed into a very small space, but at consumer cost of $7.50 for more reasonably sized SSDs, Apple could pack five 16GB SSDs into the motherboard of this new notebook for a total of 80GB at only $600 - and remember, that's consumer cost quoted by Samsung.

There is no way Apple paid $250 for the flash memory in each of the iPod Touches ($1000/64GB=$15/GB, $15/GB x 16GBTouch=$250).

Knowing Steve's love of all things sleek, I can't see him marketing an "impossibly thin" subnotebook unless he can get it under .75".

According to an April 25, 2007 Engadget article citing a Samsung press release, SSD is currently at a median price of only $7.50/GB. The 64GB SSD is $1K because it is all one module packed into a very small space, but at consumer cost of $7.50 for more reasonably sized SSDs, Apple could pack five 16GB SSDs into the motherboard of this new notebook for a total of 80GB at only $600 - and remember, that's consumer cost quoted by Samsung.

There is no way Apple paid $250 for the flash memory in each of the iPod Touches ($1000/64GB=$15/GB, $15/GB x 16GBTouch=$250).

Knowing Steve's love of all things sleek, I can't see him marketing an "impossibly thin" subnotebook unless he can get it under .75".

You're making up your own prices. Don't do that.

You can only go by products that are released. You don't know anything else.

The Samsung is an SSD. Modules are not SSD's. And each module would need to have its own controller on-board. That would raise the overall price, not lower it.

Apple doesn't use SSD's in the iTouch, iPhone, or any of their other iPods. The use the much slower Flash modules, which are much cheaper.